Opinion
2011-09-29
The PEOPLE of The State of New York, Respondent,v.Anike SANCHEZ, Appellant.
Felicia S. Raphael, Kerhonkson, for appellant.D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.
Felicia S. Raphael, Kerhonkson, for appellant.D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.
MERCURE, J.P.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered February 10, 2010, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crimes of attempted burglary in the second degree and escape in the second degree.
Upon defendant's plea of guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree and escape in the second degree, County Court (Schneer, J.) agreed to sentence her to the Willard substance abuse program. However, after reviewing the presentence investigation report, the court (Williams, J.) determined that the Willard program was not appropriate and indicated that it would instead sentence defendant to an aggregate term of four years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. After defendant declined the court's subsequent offers to allow her to withdraw her plea, the court sentenced her accordingly. Defendant now appeals.
Where a court determines that the negotiated sentence is not appropriate, it may impose an enhanced sentence if it first offers the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea ( see People v. Wilson, 69 A.D.3d 970, 971, 892 N.Y.S.2d 627 [2010]; People v. Haslow, 20 A.D.3d 680, 681, 797 N.Y.S.2d 784 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 828, 804 N.Y.S.2d 43, 837 N.E.2d 742 [2005]; see also People v. Bonville, 69 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 894 N.Y.S.2d 208 [2010] ). Here, defendant, who was fully informed at the sentencing proceeding of the sentence that County Court intended to impose, repeatedly declined the court's offers to withdraw her plea and elected to proceed with sentencing. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the court's imposition of an enhanced sentence ( see People v. Washburn, 76 A.D.3d 1120, 1120–1121, 907 N.Y.S.2d 707 [2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 864, 923 N.Y.S.2d 426, 947 N.E.2d 1205 [2011]; People v. Wilson, 69 A.D.3d at 971, 892 N.Y.S.2d 627 [2010] ). Furthermore, given defendant's criminal history and inability to comply with supervision, we are not persuaded that her substance abuse problems constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of her sentence ( see People v. Jones, 9 A.D.3d 686, 687, 780 N.Y.S.2d 102 [2004]; People v. Kane, 6 A.D.3d 986, 987, 775 N.Y.S.2d 603 [2004]; People v. Vansickle, 301 A.D.2d 963, 964, 755 N.Y.S.2d 466 [2003] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
ROSE, MALONE JR., KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ., concur.